Agenda item

Recommendation: Conditional approval subject to legal agreement

Proposal: Full application for the proposed creation of a mixed-use building consisting of the retention of the existing 3 no. retail stores at ground floor level and the addition of 16 no. apartments on new first, second and third floor levels, including the erection of three and four storey rear extensions with associated car parking, cycle and bin stores, following partial demolition of the existing building.

Applicant: Mr Hardeep Hans

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 21 to 89.

The Committee were advised that updates contained within the Supplementary Planning Agenda included:

·       Clarification that the correct CIL rate for 2023 was £500.29 index linked.

·       Clarification of points raised by Councillor Boyt during the February Committee meeting regarding amenity space, internal amenity space, clarification around accessible units, parking provision, heating and extraction units and retail units.

·       Briefing note from the applicant’s consultant;

Michaela Dalton spoke in objection to the application. Michaela commented that she was the owner of Woodley Pets whose service area was at the rear of Library Parade, opposite the proposed site. She stated that the application would have an impact on this already congested, high traffic area. There was already a limited turning circle for HGVs, and many reversed back from the Headley Road due to the fencing. Michaela stated that already unauthorised vehicles were using the existing parking space, which was difficult to police.  She felt that the application offered insufficient parking provision, with 8 spaces for 16 apartments, only 31% of any incoming residents.  She commented that whilst they were being marketed as being without parking, the same was the case for the flats above Lidl, and every resident had a car. Michaela also questioned what provision was being made for the overflow of retail staff who would no longer be able to park in the development site, and also during the construction period when contractors would be on site.

Bruce Chappell, resident, spoke in objection to the application. Bruce stated that he lived with his daughter in one of the flats above the Lidl building, directly opposite Library Parade. He raised concerns regarding privacy for himself and his daughter, the close proximity of the proposed site, the potential for sunlight to his property to be blocked, and the fact that he felt that the proposal was not in keeping with surrounding area. Bruce commented that he had offered for officers to come and see the proposed site from his flat to assess the impact, but that this had not been taken up.  He had also been unaware of the Members site visit.  Bruce went on to question what measures would be taken to ensure that residents were not impacted by noise pollution from the plant equipment which was to be situated on the roof at the highest point.  In addition, he questioned plans in place during construction.  During the warmer months his balcony and windows were often open, and he had concerns regarding the potential impact of dust, noise and chemicals, and the impact on privacy. 

Paul Butt, agent, spoke in support of the application.  Paul stated that the distance between Sandford Court and the proposed dwellings was within planning guidelines.  The separation distance was nearly 11 metres across Library Parade.  He commented that Mr Chappell lived in the western most of the two flats opposite.  Proposed Unit 14, opposite, would have two bedrooms with two internally shuttered bedroom windows.  Paul advised the Committee that the applicant was willing to relocate the living room window to Unit 13.  He emphasised that Planning Practice Guidance allowed for a condition to modify plans as the application would not be substantially different.  With regards to concerns raised by objectors to the application around traffic issues in the service yard, Paul highlighted that the Highways Officer had anticipated a significant reduction in traffic generation with the proposed residential use compared to the existing office use.

Shirley Boyt, Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application. She thanked Officers for partly addressing issues that she had previously raised.  However, with regards to the location of the wheelchair accessible apartments the distance from the lift to the apartments was 17 metres but the disabled parking bays were at the furthest point from the lift at around 22 metres.  She asked that parking be reconfigured so that the disabled bays were adjacent to the lift entrance, and the needs of wheelchair users be taken into consideration with the design of the lift lobby doors. Shirley noted that the apartments were to be marketed as car free and commented that whilst this worked well in large urban centres, Woodley was not a large town centre and only had decent public transport links with Reading.  She referred to Sandford Court which had been cited as an example of car free living and stated that almost every resident owned a car.  Those that could not afford season tickets had to park elsewhere.  She felt that this would also be the case with the new development.  Shirley stated that the existing air conditioning and extraction units did not have negative impact on residents even when running at full capacity during the summer months.  She questioned the size and number of units that would be situated on the plant area on the roof and if there would be air source heat pumps. There could potentially be adverse noise impact on the top floor flats of Sandford Court, particularly in summer. Shirley noted that condition 12 called for a noise impact assessment, and questioned why this had not been requested earlier in the process, and what would happen should the noise impact assessment show noise levels to be above acceptable levels.

It was confirmed that a number of Members had attended a site visit or visited the site themselves.

Andrew Mickleburgh questioned which floors the accessible apartments would be located and was informed that they would be located on the first and second floors.  Andrew noted that no objection had been received from the Fire Authority and sought clarification as to whether the plans viewed by the Fire Authority would have made it clear that the accessible units would not be located on the ground floor.  It was confirmed that the Fire Authority had viewed the plans contained within the agenda.  Andrew went on to ask about the offer from the applicant to relocate the window of Unit 13 and whether it would be beneficial to residents in the flats opposite.  Helen Maynard, case officer, confirmed that the Committee should consider what was before it.  Andrew questioned whether an informative that the applicant look at positioning the disabled parking bays as near as possible to the access points, could be included.  Helen Maynard stated that the Committee should consider what was before it.  However, the Highways Officer had had no objections to the parking arrangements.  Whilst an informative was possible it was not binding on the applicant.

Stephen Conway thanked the case officer for the report and presentation.  He sought clarification regarding separation distances as detailed in the Borough Design Guide.  Helen Maynard indicated that the Borough Design Guide referred to a distance of 15 metres at the height of building in question.  The proposed buildings would be 11 metres from the existing flats.  However, the Design Guide also stated that in town centre locations or schemes in a more urban setting, distances were likely to be tighter, and could be under 15 metres.  Stephen Conway was of the view that the proposed separation distance was so far under the 15 metres guidance as to prove an unacceptable relationship with the existing properties.

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey asked whether personal evacuation plans would be brought in for the accessible apartments.  Brian Conlon, Operational Lead – Development Management, stated that there were certain requirements for Fire Safety Plans for designated buildings which met a threshold in terms of the number or size of units.  The application did not trigger this requirement.  Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey went on to question whether in urban areas, separation distances of less than 15 metres were more common.  Helen Maynard confirmed that this was the case, and that Woodley town centre was designated as an urban area.  She stated that due to the height of Lidl and the surgery there would be a staggered relationship as opposed to a direct window to window relationship.  Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey asked whether it would be possible to see into the windows of existing apartments opposite and was informed that it may be possible to look down to some extent in some cases.

Rebecca Margetts was of the view that an 11 metre separation distance was quite a departure from the Design Guide.  She questioned why no information or photographs had been provided from the viewpoint of the apartments that would be located opposite.  Brian Conlon stated that the relationship within the town centre precinct was not unusual for an urban area.  There were examples in the Borough with similar relationships where ensuring the 15 metre distance was impossible due to factors such as street widths.  Therefore, the Borough Design Guide allowed for an assessment of the character of the area.  Discretion could be used to determine whether harm would be caused. 

Wayne Smith stated that it was already a congested area.  Shipping containers were currently taking up available parking spaces.  In addition he commented that heat pumps could be noisy.  Wayne expressed concern regarding the separation distances.

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey questioned whether it was a requirement in the Borough Design Guide that parking was provided for apartments, and if there were acceptable noise levels within urban areas.  Helen Maynard stated that 11 of the 16 units would be car free and the Highways Officer had not objected to this because of the sustainable location.  There was no requirement for apartments to have parking provision.  She emphasised that ‘car free’ did not preclude owners from owning a car but they would not have onsite parking provision and would have to park elsewhere.  Condition 24 referred to plant noise condition.  If noise levels were higher than that detailed in the condition, noise attenuation would be required.

Stephen Conway stated that units 14 and 15 would be 11 metres from existing apartments.  Although there would be oblique relationships it would still be possible to see into rooms on the opposite side.  The Borough Design Guide was silent on how far below the 15 metre separation distance standard could be considered acceptable.  Stephen was of the view that the 11 metre separation distance was unacceptable and would give scope for overlooking.  Stephen questioned whether parking issues could be taken into account.  Rachel Lucas, Legal, commented that clear planning reasons needed to be provided should the Committee be minded to make a decision which was contrary to the officer recommendation.

Stephen Conway proposed that the application be refused on the grounds of the impact on amenity of the neighbouring occupiers as a result of proximity and overlooking.  This was seconded by Wayne Smith.

RESOLVED: That application number 222367 be refused on the grounds of the impact on amenity of the neighbouring occupiers as a result of proximity and overlooking.